Hannibal constantly beat the Romans. I know it was already mentioned, but he beat them in battle so many times that they used the strategy of NOT fighting him anymore.
Pretty incredible.
I think Crassus’s defeat has been overly attributed to cavalry as opposed to indifferent generalship. The Roman consistently defeated the Persians in the second and third centuries, taking Ctesiphon 5 times.
I’d say more shitty generalship than indifferent, but I agree ;). Credit to Surena as well, who did a very good job with limited forces. But Crassus seriously screwed the pooch.
It might be of interest to the OP that the Spanish reintroduced troops intended to mimic Roman Legions in the very early 1500s. These Rodeleros, named after their shield (traditionally called a buckler, but it was pretty big by the standards of what’s been called a buckler) and at least somewhat mimicked the effectiveness of the Legionaries’ scutum. Like the Roman formations, they were intended to be flexible in the face of changing battlefield conditions.
These Rodeleros had some notable battlefield successes; in one case, a well-timed duck underneath the advancing pikes of a pike formation enabled them to slaughter pikemen. The concept was finally abandoned by 1530.
So although not exactly Roman Legions, they showed that a very similar concept could still be effective in the Renaissance.
Given that it was steel, I assume the rodela would have been more effective against piercing and projectile weapons.
I’m pretty sure that’s the guy I was referring to. He was mentioned in one of the History channels specials on the decline of Rome. That battle was a significant defeat.
Teutoburg Forest was pretty devastating, not just strategically but to Roman military culture. IIRC, the numbers of the annihilated legions were never reassigned.
Yes. It is surprisingly difficult to push a wood shaft through a wood shield. My understanding is that harming somebody who is hiding behind a shield at over 100 yards is quite unlikely.
This is an interesting discussion on the topic: link
Number of Sassanid kings used by the Roman’s as a foot-stool in the third century: 0
Number of Roman Emperors used by the Sassanid’s as a foot-stool in the third century: 1
Hard to argue the Sassanid’s didn’t give better then they got in the third century.
And in the first century two Roman armies after that sent by Crassus met with defeat in Persia. So its hard to say the Parthians didn’t do pretty well against the Roman’s as well, even if faced with Generals other then Crassus.
It was really only in the second century that the Romans managed to consistantly beat the Persians, and that was only during the time-period when the Parthian empire was fracturing, to be replaced by the Sassanid’s.
They’re talking about, in many cases, wooden shields catching arrows after the head is a foot or more through. So your testudo, under a rain of arrows from good bowmen, is going to have lots of men with wounded shield arms, and probably some who got it in the face.
“how late in history before they would be beatable” - I’ll go for 216 B.C, so, not too late at all.
Note that even without gunpowder, they would still not prevail by Napoleonic times at the latest, due to the bigger size of armies. Now granted, much of what made the bigger size of armies possible was greater bureaucratization of the centralized state, which was made possible by the levelling of feudalism, which was made possible by gunpowder. But once we grant the greater centralization and population growth which allowed for larger armies, Napoleonic-era through WW2-size armies were bigger than the Roman Army by at least an order of magnitude.
Come to think of it, the Mongols also had the Romans completely outnumbered, not to mention outclassed (although there were various Napoleonic cavalry types that would be a match for a legion man for man.)
Number of times a Roman Capital was taken by the Persians: 0
Number of times a Persian Capital was taken by the Romans: 7. And on multiple occasions saw the whole population sold into slavery.
As for post Crassus failures, Antony failed because he choose a difficult invasion
Route and also because he left his head between Cleopatra’s thighs. After Trajen the
Romans were dominant despite setbacks. Even after Valerian was used as a footstool, the Romans would in the following generation capture Ctesiphon twice. It was only after the failure of Julian that the Romans lost superiority in the East, chiefly because of the genera, collapse of the state, which after being reversed by Justinian saw them resume offensives in the East and in 588 AD penetrate deep into Iran.
What kind of infantry did Hannibal field?
Another anecdotal point is that English longbows were claimed by period eyewitnesses to penetrate four-inch-thick oak doors. Presumably no one using a wooden shield is using one more than four inches thick.
So, Roman-armed, probably with Roman-like tactics, is what I get from that. That’s hardly very damning of the legions, is it?
The extant Dura-Europos scutum is variable from 9mm at the centre to 4-6mm thick at the edge. But it is of glued ply construction, not sure how that affects penetrability.
The scutum was also faced with leather, which if it was rawhide (likely) is damn tough.
No, quite the opposite. A chaotic hodgepodge of different fighting styles and arms compared to the legion. Those slings are not to be discounted either.
“So, Roman-armed, probably with Roman-like tactics, is what I get from that. That’s hardly very damning of the legions”
What? it’s extremely damning of the legions. Team originates the arms and tactics. team B copies them and does it better than the originators. How does that show the originators in any thing but a bad light? ‘yeah, the short sword and the turtle were great ideas, but the Romans were second best when it came to implementing their own ideas.’
Seems damning to me.